Read More

In court yesterday the jury were shown CCTV of the moments before and after the altercation that showed a series of altercations in the petrol station forecourt and shop.

The jury also heard evidence from Mr Saunders' uncle, Patrick Connors, who had witnessed the incident. Today's proceedings are expected to begin with the defence's cross-examination of Mr Connors' evidence.

Key Events

Court adjourning

There are problems with documents, which will take a while to sort out, so the judge has decided to adjourn until Monday, when Mr Thakray will have to return to finish being cross-examined by Mr Scobie (and possibly Mr Benson).

15:52

"He must've been a bodybuilder"

Mr Scobie cross-examines Mr Thakray, saying he said in his statement that one of the men involved in the fight was bigger than the others and “must have been a bodybuilder.

“He seemed to be shouting the loudest.”

15:52

Next witness

There are no further questions for Mr Hamilton, so he steps down.

The prosecution calls the next witness, Paul Thakray, who gives a brief account of the fight between the defendants and Mr Saunders.

15:51

"I thought they were a bunch of idiots"

Mr Scobie continues to take Mr Hamilton through his statement.

Mr Hamilton said:

“He [Baker] was moving away most of the time. He was coming into range, then stepping away. He didn’t really want to engage as he was moving away from him [Saunders].

“He was holding it [the whisk] in his hand, but he wasn’t swinging it.

“He was moving away. The son [Mr Saunders, whom Mr Hamilton mistook for Mr Connors’ son] looked like he was taking the fight to the smaller chap.”

CCTV shows Mr Hamilton leaving the shop as the defendants and Mr Saunders entered for the final time. He did not see what happened next, but saw the defendants getting into their van and driving off.

Asked later what he thought had happened, he said: “I thought they had just got away from him [Mr Saunders].”

He added; “I thought they were a bunch of idiots fighting in a petrol station.”

15:10

"He looked like a fighter"

Mr Scobie continues to read from Mr Hamilton’s statement:

“He [Mr Saunders] looked like a fighter. He seems to take his punch and get straight back up again.

“This is why I think they went for weapons, because they didn’t look like fighters like him.”

Mr Hamilton agrees that this was his impression.

15:02

Defendants were made to get back out of their van

Mr Scobie is reading from Mr Hamilton’s statement.

In it, Mr Hamilton said he saw two men, Mr Connors and Mr Saunders, shouting and pointing at the defendants, who were shouting and pointing back at them. He added Mrs Connors, whom Mr Hamilton mistook for Mr Saunders’ mother, “was trying to pull them away to break it up”.

He then went on: “There was a short break, in which the two van men [Mr Baker and Mr Coyle] got back in their van. Then the father [actually Mr Connors] and the son [Mr Saunders] went up to the back of the van and pushed it, which made the guys in the van get out.”

14:56

Cross-examination of Mr Hamilton

Mr Scobie has got to his feet to cross-examine Mr Hamilton. He says Mr Hamilton, through no fault of his own, has conflated two incidents into one.

14:55

Mr Hamilton gives his evidence

James Hamilton, who was driving an Army recovery vehicle to Salisbury Plain when he stopped to refuel at the Cobham Services, witnessed part of the fight.

He says he heard shouting, but couldn’t tell what it was about. The only thing he could distinctly make out was Mr Saunders shouting “You won’t sleep tonight” repeatedly.

14:38

The next witness enters the box

The next witness is James Hamilton, who was at the scene on June 26.

14:38

Dr Chapman concludes his evidence

The pathologist’s evidence is not contested and he steps down from the witness box.

Mr Patel calls the next witness, but as the judge explains witness services are short-staffed today so it will take a few minutes to get him from the witness holding area.

14:28

Mr Saunders' other injuries

Dr Chapman also refers to other injuries, mainly bruising to other parts of Mr Saunders’ body including his chin, arms, shoulders and back.

He says these are consistent with the “rough and tumble”, as Mr Scobie calls it, of the kind of fight he was involved in.

14:25KEY EVENT

Jurors shown the whisk

The jury is being shown the whisk which killed Mr Saunders.

It is about two feet long, made of steel, with a whisk at one end and a metal bar at the other. It is contained in a plastic evidence tube.

Dr Chapman says: “The assessment of force is very simple, we use a three point scale of mild, moderate or severe. In this case, where there has been penetration of a dense structure like bone, it is likely to be at the severe end of the scale.”

The pathologist also says Mr Saunders had enough alcohol in his blood to cause drunkenness “in a normal, social drinker”, but its exact effect on Mr Saunders would depend on his tolerance to alcohol.

14:13

Dr Chapman describes the fatal injury

Dr Chapman, a consultant forensic pathologist who conducted the post-mortem on Mr Saunders, is giving evidence. He and Mr Patel are showing the jury graphics depicting the injuries sustained by Mr Saunders.

“This is a penetrating injury,” he says, “passing through the soft tissues of the scalp, and immediately underlying that area a penetrating injury to the left frontal part of the skull.

“This injury track passed through the skull, through both frontal lobes of the brain, to end up as a very small depressed injury to the other side of the skull.”

14:08KEY EVENT

Trial resumes

The judge has returned, as has the jury, and prosecutor Sandip Patel QC calls the next witness, pathologist Dr Robert Chapman.

14:08

Court reconvening

The barristers are strolling back into the courtroom after lunch, the defendants are being brought up and the judge cannot be far away.

While we wait for things to start up again, a brief recap of what we’ve heard so far:

James Scobie QC, defending Mr Baker, cross-examined Mr Connors. He suggested Mr Connors had lied to the police in his statement when he said he had been knocked out and had only come round when the defendants were leaving. He also suggested Mr Connors had not tried to stop the fight, but was merely restraining Mr Coyle so that Mr Saunders and Mr Baker could have a “one-to-one”.

Mr Connors denied these claims.

Jeremy Benson QC, defending Mr Coyle, then pursued a similar line of questioning, asking why Mr Connors and his party had not returned to their car when it looked like the defendants were walking away and the confrontation was over. He also asked why Mr Connors had not tried to restrain Mr Saunders or told him to go back to the car, and had instead focused on Mr Coyle.

Mr Connors said he could not restrain three young men, only one, and his wife had attempted to get between Mr Saunders and Mr Baker.

Mr Benson suggested Mr Connors had in fact been encouraging the fight, but wanted it to be a one-on-one fist fight, rather than Mr Saunders fighting both defendants.

Mr Connors denied this.

Mrs Connors also gave evidence, but said she could not remember anything about the event between getting out of the car and finding the badly injured Mr Saunders on the floor of the petrol station shop, other than trying to get between Mr Saunders and the defendants to break up the fight and calling for the police.

13:10KEY EVENT

And that is lunch

Mr Benson has no further questions either, and the judge decides this is a convenient time to adjourn for lunch.

We will be back at 2.

13:10

Mrs Connors finishes giving evidence

Mrs Connors continues to reply to Mr Scobie’s questions by saying she doesn’t remember what happened.

Mr Scobie asks her if she was aware Mr Saunders was training for boxing, she says she knew he was training, but he was also a smoker and a drinker.

“Quhey didn’t put in for a fight, he didn’t put in to be murdered,” she says.

Mr Scobie has no further questions.

12:47

"My mind went blank"

Mr Scobie is asking Mrs Connors a series of questions about the events leading up to the fight, but Mrs Connors says she doesn’t remember much.

“I was traumatised,” she says, “My mind went blank.”

12:34

"One minute we were in the car, the next minute he was dead"

Mrs Connors says she was “traumatised” and cannot remember anything between getting our of the car and finding a badly injured Mr Saunders, except calling for the police.

She said: “All I remember that day is just getting in the middle of them, saying ‘stop this, stop this’ and roaring for police, roaring for help.

“One minute we were in the back of the car, he was showing me photos of the wedding.

“The next minute he was dead, he was murdered.”

Mr Patel sits down, and Mr Scobie begins his cross-examination.

12:28

Mrs Connors arrives

Lizzy Connors, who like her husband is also giving evidence from behind a screen, has entered the witness box.

Sandip Patel QC begins taking her through her evidence for the prosecution.

12:24KEY EVENT

Mrs Connors will be next to give evidence

There are no more questions for Mr Connors so the judge called a short adjournment before Mrs Connors gives evidence.

Before Mrs Connors gives her evidence, a brief recap of this morning’s events:

James Scobie QC, defending Mr Baker, cross-examined Mr Connors. He suggested Mr Connors had lied to the police in his statement when he said he had been knocked out and had only come round when the defendants were leaving. He also suggested Mr Connors had not tried to stop the fight, but was merely restraining Mr Coyle so that Mr Saunders and Mr Baker could have a “one-to-one”.

Mr Connors denied these claims.

Jeremy Benson QC, defending Mr Coyle, then pursued a similar line of questioning, asking why Mr Connors and his party had not returned to their car when it looked like the defendants were walking away and the confrontation was over. He also asked why Mr Connors had not tried to restrain Mr Saunders or told him to go back to the car, and had instead focused on Mr Coyle.

Mr Connors said he could not restrain three young men, only one, and his wife had attempted to get between Mr Saunders and Mr Baker.

Mr Benson suggested Mr Connors had in fact been encouraging the fight, but wanted it to be a one-on-one fist fight, rather than Mr Saunders fighting both defendants.

Mr Connors denied this.

12:24

"Stop being cowardly"

Mr Benson: “Very simply, I suggest that all through this you were saying to Mr Coyle ‘Stand back Mikey, let the boys have a fight.’”

Mr Connors: “No, I never said that.”

Mr Benson: “An what you were saying to them when they went to the van was ‘Come back, Simey, have a fight.’”

Mr Connors: “No.”

Mr Benson: “You were encouraging Simey to fight Quhey.”

Mr Connors: “No.”

Mr Benson: “And you said ‘Come back, put down the weapons and have a fight, stop being cowardly.”

Mr Connors: “No.”

11:55

Mr Benson's questions

Mr Benson continues along a similar line of questioning to Mr Scobie. He asks why Mr Connors chased after the defendants when they left the service station shop after the initial fight.

Mr Connors says he was telling them to go home, but Mr Benson says Mr Connors was chasing after them because he wanted there to be a one-to-one between Quhey and one of the defendants.

Mr Scobie: “This isn’t a case of him being run down by two men with weapons, is it? Quhey is going forward always.”

Mr Connors: “I wouldn’t say that. They were having a confrontation.”

11:24

Judge intervenes

Things get a bit heated between Mr Connors and Mr Scobie, so the judge, Anthony Leonard QC, intervenes to ask Mr Connors not to ask questions of Mr Scobie, even though he may have such questions in his mind.

11:17

CCTV

Mr Scobie is leading Mr Connors through the CCTV of him being knocked to the ground, getting up and trying to restrain Mr Coyle.

He says at one stage it looked like Mr Connors tried to punch Mr Coyle, but Mr Connors denies it.

11:12

A one-to-one

Mr Scobie also suggests that, far from asking the defendants and Mr Saunders not to fight because they were cousins, he wanted Mr Saunders and Mr Baker to have a “one-to-one”.

He says: “I suggest you were trying to tell Coyle to keep out of it so Quhey and Baker could have a one-to-one. Do you accept that?”